GM Strike

Reisender wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Reisender wrote:
Autoworkers feel EV’s will be job killers.

https://www.autonews.com/manufacturing/auto-workers-fear-evs-will-be-job-killers

That is pretty interesting. I wonder if the temp employer thing they say they are holding out for is just a ruse, and they are really holding to stop EV's. After all, the temp worker thing has been around for decades and could have been a point for previous contract negotiations, but never was. Why is it now?

Stopping EV’s wouldn’t make any sense. The market for non EV’s is going to continue to shrink. Being an employee of a company with an ever shrinking market would be more scary than being an employee that is downsizing for modernization reasons.

Have you ever been downsized out of a job? I was downsized out of the steel industry in the early 80's, after wasting close to 10 years. Granted the company started by driving the nails and pounding on them for years prior, but the USW played a large role in driving them home. It was no picnic and there is an entire valley 30 miles long in western PA where I grew up where tens of thousands of people / families, and dozens of towns, were totally decimated financially. A lot of those areas are still depressed 40 years later. It's easy to comment on forums regarding things one never experienced.

ShinerBock wrote:

Reisender wrote:
Autoworkers feel EV’s will be job killers.

https://www.autonews.com/manufacturing/auto-workers-fear-evs-will-be-job-killers

That is pretty interesting. I wonder if the temp employer thing they say they are holding out for is just a ruse, and they are really holding to stop EV's. After all, the temp worker thing has been around for decades and could have been a point for previous contract negotiations, but never was. Why is it now?

Stopping EV’s wouldn’t make any sense. The market for non EV’s is going to continue to shrink. Being an employee of a company with an ever shrinking market would be more scary than being an employee that is downsizing for modernization reasons.

Reisender wrote:
Autoworkers feel EV’s will be job killers.

https://www.autonews.com/manufacturing/auto-workers-fear-evs-will-be-job-killers

That is pretty interesting. I wonder if the temp employer thing they say they are holding out for is just a ruse, and they are really holding to stop EV's. After all, the temp worker thing has been around for decades and could have been a point for previous contract negotiations, but never was. Why is it now?

Here is a link to the 2016 report by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management if you want to look at the numbers yourself.

Official Time Usage in the
Federal Government
Fiscal Year 2016


Here is the one for 2014.

Official Time Usage in the
Federal Government
Fiscal Year 2014


It is done every few years and the 2018 report isn't out yet. As you can see, well over $100M dollars of taxpayer dollars each year are spent on union workers doing union business on work hours(aka taxpayer's dime) so if one wants to get mad about a union having to represent a non union member saying they are "free loading", then I will bring this up. Although I wish there was a similar report for the private sector. I am sure there would be millions of dollars there as well based on what I have seen.

fj12ryder wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

Whoa! Back up there! I don't think I called people in right to work states "freeloaders".
Say 10 people working side by each, all doing the same work, all getting paid the same, union negotiated rate, working under the same union negotiated work rules. 6 are paying the dues, 4 are not. Now say work gets slow, company decides need to cut staff, and wants to lay off the oldest because he will soon be eligible for the union negotiated retirement. By the so called "Right To Work" laws I have read, if the contract says the least senior workers should be first cut, union must represent the one the company want to cut, even if he has never paid a dime in dues. What do you call that old guy? If you paid dues, does that change his name?

1. You said you call right to work states the right to "free load" essentially calling them free loaders.

2. In Texas, the union is not required to represent non-union workers.

3. Texas has the Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 which protects people who are over 40 from this kind of stuff in places that have more than 15 employees. You also have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for US, but that applies to employers with 20 employees of more.



What about the reverse? Unions using taxpayer time/money to fund their operations?

The Unfair Ways Unions Use Resources from Taxpayers, Members

"In FY 2016, federal employees spent more than 3.6 million working hours on union business. That includes:

1 million+ hours at the Department of Veterans Affairs. (One registered nurse from the VA spent 100 percent of her time doing official time.)
58,000 hours at the Environmental Protection Agency.
6,500 hours at the Department of Education.
873 hours at the National Science Foundation."

"At the scandal-plagued VA alone, 472 employees spent 100 percent of their working hours advancing union interests instead of actually caring for veterans in fiscal 2017, including two who each made more than $190,000 per year – all while veterans were dying waiting in line for the VA’s government-run healthcare."

What about those? When I worked at the paper mil that I stated earlier, I saw union leaders doing union stuff on company time all the time. They even used company supplies like paper, printers and ink.

Like I said. There is good and bad on both sides. You can't mention the union doing stuff for free without bringing up the fact that they do a lot of stuff on the company dime as well. So if you are mad at the union having to represent non-union workers on the union dime, then take it out of the 100 plus million dollars each year unions get it out of taxpayers for doing union work on the clock. Although, I am sure you will still owe us in the end.

Heavens knows that the "facts" quoted there are on the level and not biased. Since the "Americans for Prosperity" is funded by the Koch brothers, I'm sure it's completely even handed. Riiiiiiiight.

The reported numbers came from the US government(the U.S. Office of Personnel Management or OPM to be exact) if you read the article. Americans for Prosperity was just reporting reporting on the numbers that came from the US government just like many others have written about the same thing. Ironically, most of those who wrote an article about this are on the right, but hardly any left leaning news organization said a word about it. I guess they don't want their people to know what is really going and only want them to know the negatives on the other side.

Autoworkers feel EV’s will be job killers.

https://www.autonews.com/manufacturing/auto-workers-fear-evs-will-be-job-killers

ShinerBock wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

Whoa! Back up there! I don't think I called people in right to work states "freeloaders".
Say 10 people working side by each, all doing the same work, all getting paid the same, union negotiated rate, working under the same union negotiated work rules. 6 are paying the dues, 4 are not. Now say work gets slow, company decides need to cut staff, and wants to lay off the oldest because he will soon be eligible for the union negotiated retirement. By the so called "Right To Work" laws I have read, if the contract says the least senior workers should be first cut, union must represent the one the company want to cut, even if he has never paid a dime in dues. What do you call that old guy? If you paid dues, does that change his name?

1. You said you call right to work states the right to "free load" essentially calling them free loaders.

2. In Texas, the union is not required to represent non-union workers.

3. Texas has the Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 which protects people who are over 40 from this kind of stuff in places that have more than 15 employees. You also have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for US, but that applies to employers with 20 employees of more.



What about the reverse? Unions using taxpayer time/money to fund their operations?

The Unfair Ways Unions Use Resources from Taxpayers, Members

"In FY 2016, federal employees spent more than 3.6 million working hours on union business. That includes:

1 million+ hours at the Department of Veterans Affairs. (One registered nurse from the VA spent 100 percent of her time doing official time.)
58,000 hours at the Environmental Protection Agency.
6,500 hours at the Department of Education.
873 hours at the National Science Foundation."

"At the scandal-plagued VA alone, 472 employees spent 100 percent of their working hours advancing union interests instead of actually caring for veterans in fiscal 2017, including two who each made more than $190,000 per year – all while veterans were dying waiting in line for the VA’s government-run healthcare."

What about those? When I worked at the paper mil that I stated earlier, I saw union leaders doing union stuff on company time all the time. They even used company supplies like paper, printers and ink.

Like I said. There is good and bad on both sides. You can't mention the union doing stuff for free without bringing up the fact that they do a lot of stuff on the company dime as well. So if you are mad at the union having to represent non-union workers on the union dime, then take it out of the 100 plus million dollars each year unions get it out of taxpayers for doing union work on the clock. Although, I am sure you will still owe us in the end.

Heavens knows that the "facts" quoted there are on the level and not biased. Since the "Americans for Prosperity" is funded by the Koch brothers, I'm sure it's completely even handed. Riiiiiiiight.

JRscooby wrote:

Whoa! Back up there! I don't think I called people in right to work states "freeloaders".
Say 10 people working side by each, all doing the same work, all getting paid the same, union negotiated rate, working under the same union negotiated work rules. 6 are paying the dues, 4 are not. Now say work gets slow, company decides need to cut staff, and wants to lay off the oldest because he will soon be eligible for the union negotiated retirement. By the so called "Right To Work" laws I have read, if the contract says the least senior workers should be first cut, union must represent the one the company want to cut, even if he has never paid a dime in dues. What do you call that old guy? If you paid dues, does that change his name?

1. You said you call right to work states the right to "free load" essentially calling them free loaders.

2. In Texas, the union is not required to represent non-union workers.

3. Texas has the Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 which protects people who are over 40 from this kind of stuff in places that have more than 15 employees. You also have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for US, but that applies to employers with 20 employees of more.



What about the reverse? Unions using taxpayer time/money to fund their operations?

The Unfair Ways Unions Use Resources from Taxpayers, Members

"In FY 2016, federal employees spent more than 3.6 million working hours on union business. That includes:

1 million+ hours at the Department of Veterans Affairs. (One registered nurse from the VA spent 100 percent of her time doing official time.)
58,000 hours at the Environmental Protection Agency.
6,500 hours at the Department of Education.
873 hours at the National Science Foundation."

"At the scandal-plagued VA alone, 472 employees spent 100 percent of their working hours advancing union interests instead of actually caring for veterans in fiscal 2017, including two who each made more than $190,000 per year – all while veterans were dying waiting in line for the VA’s government-run healthcare."

What about those? When I worked at the paper mil that I stated earlier, I saw union leaders doing union stuff on company time all the time. They even used company supplies like paper, printers and ink.

Like I said. There is good and bad on both sides. You can't mention the union doing stuff for free without bringing up the fact that they do a lot of stuff on the company dime as well. So if you are mad at the union having to represent non-union workers on the union dime, then take it out of the 100 plus million dollars each year unions get it out of taxpayers for doing union work on the clock. Although, I am sure you will still owe us in the end.

Huntindog wrote:
my union (UFCW) dues have two parts. Thw actual dues which are mandatory for membership, Ant the politcal funds part,which is optional, and I can specify how much I want to pay.

It has been that way for many years, and I doubt my Union is unigue in that regard.
So nobody is being forced to support politics they may not agree with.

I myself am a Republican. I give a small amount... I do this as I believe that the presence of this money going to primarily democrats, helps to keep some republicans union friendly.

It isn't that way in the UAW. The only way you can get out of paying the political part of your dues is to become a Beck Objector. You still have to pay most of your dues but you can't vote in any election. You are still paying most of your dues but have no voice in anything that happens.

The problem with unions and politicians these days is that they push the notion that those who's viewpoint is different from yours/theirs are considered the enemy. Sadly, lots of people get sucked into that mentality.